Latest news with #PamelaWhitten
Indianapolis Star
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana School for the Deaf layoffs tell students they're not important
The difference between a student thriving and a student slipping through the cracks often comes down to one adult. The one who notices their struggles and has the time to explain, to listen and to stay after class. At Indiana School for the Deaf, 26 of those adults were laid off after state budget cuts. With them go hundreds of quiet moments that help students feel seen, safe and supported. Educational equity isn't about giving every child the same tools. It's about making sure every child has what they need to thrive. ASL is a full and complex language with its own grammar and nuance, equal in richness to spoken English. Unlike mainstream schools, where deaf students often rely on interpreters to communicate, ISD offers direct, effortless interaction throughout the day. Whether in the classroom or during unstructured moments like lunch, recess, standing in line, or chatting after school, students are surrounded by others who sign. That matters because when students are fully included in both the academic and social life of school, they begin to see themselves as capable learners. That sense of belonging helps them stay connected to their education and carry that momentum into adulthood. Without that kind of access, students may withdraw socially. Gaps in learning grow wider. Emotional and academic setbacks follow them into adulthood. It might sound like the decision to cut ISD's budget was a response to a last-minute budget shortfall, but it wasn't. These cuts were proposed months ago, when the governor's draft budget called for nearly $1 million in reductions for ISD. Sadly, that has now ballooned into a $3 million cut. This wasn't a financial emergency. It was a conscious decision to pull resources away from deaf children. Briggs: IU is lucky to have Pamela Whitten weathering the MAGA storm When we cut staff at a school like ISD, we're not just trimming a budget. We're narrowing the path to equal opportunity. We're telling deaf children that their futures are expendable. We're sending the message that they simply aren't as important as hearing children. Deaf children are rarely part of the conversation when decisions like this are made. They're not voting. They're not holding press conferences. They're counting on hearing allies to speak up and say this isn't right.
Indianapolis Star
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
IU's future depends on academic freedom, not luck
James Briggs' column, 'IU is lucky to have Pamela Whitten weathering the MAGA storm,' misrepresents the serious concerns of many IU faculty, students and the broader academic suggests faculty should feel 'lucky' to have President Whitten at the helm. There's nothing lucky about leadership that aligns with political pressures at the expense of academic values. What IU needs is leadership that upholds academic freedom, transparency and shared governance. IU faculty have raised justified concerns about governance, budget transparency and administrative overreach. These concerns were repeatedly ignored, prompting an overwhelming no-confidence vote in the president and Provost Rahul Shrivastav. Speaking out, protesting and voting are not overreacting —they are a sign of commitment to the values of higher education.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes. Gabriel Bosslet, is a professor of clinical medicine and Tracey Wilkinson an associate professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana University's shared governance is under attack | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
New York Times
05-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Republicans Trying to Control Indiana University Meet Little Resistance
The sweeping changes to Indiana's public universities came suddenly this spring, with little time for debate. Republicans passed a new law that would require university boards to measure the productivity of tenured faculty. Faculty were downgraded to 'advisory only' roles in university decision-making. Degree programs that graduated too few students would be closed. And at Indiana University, whose flagship campus in Bloomington is ranked among the nation's top 100 schools, the state's governor was given new power over the school's governing board. The moves align with a conservative playbook to reduce faculty power on campuses perceived by many on the right as bastions of liberal thought. This year, several other Republican-led states passed laws requiring reviews for tenured faculty and the reorganization of programs at public institutions that have low enrollment. Democrats, civil liberty groups and many university presidents have responded with outrage as the Trump administration has tried to force private institutions like Harvard and Columbia to give the federal government similar powers. Harvard's leadership sued. At Indiana University, the president, Pamela Whitten, has stayed silent on the state's recent moves. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
